Liberal Myths Never Die (Nor Do They Fade Away...)

I present you with a paradox. The U.S. Army that fought the Vietnam War was reviled, not spit upon (that's a myth)...

No, the Vietnam-era spitting is not a myth. Jerry Lembke wrote the book and articles making that claim. Prof. Lembke is an unreconstructed leftist who was a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War back in the day; in the early 90's he felt that the Vietnam-era hostility of peace protestors to US soldiers was being invoked to discredit protest against Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Consequently, he set out to rehabilitate his own youth and his fellow protestors. (Lembke's other attempt at rehabilitation was to argue that it was righties that invented the notion of the drug-addled, suicidal veteran in order to discredit protestors such as Lembke; this utterly ignores the former leader of his own organization, John Kerry, who went on at length about troubled vets in his famous 1973 Senate appearance.)

Lembke's work was simply politicized "social science" given a veneer of respectability by his academic credentials; it was never a serious attempt to understand the temper of the day.

Jack Shafer of Slate backed Lembke for a while but was eventually overpowered by the combination of reality and a reader revolt. Richard Cohen will no doubt escape a similar fate, since he has no apparent interest in reality.

SINCE NO ONE ASKED: Cohen's actual point is that the US military is becoming divorced from broader society, or at least, the society in which he circulates. Having ROTC back at the Ivies might help; having a Commander-in-Chief who can think of military service as a form of national service without being prodded might also be helpful. And, in a bit of a feedback loop, military basing decisions can be problematic.

Comments

Isn't it more accurate to say, how little Cohen knows of anything. I think we support
the fighting men in women in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the enemy is more tangible, the Vietnamese never really threatened us stateside, or despite Ross Perot's musings, coordinated themselves with
those who did. Now the Cuban Govt by contrast, cultivated and trained those who became the Weathermen, and the Montoneros,
etc

This is why Cohen and the "liberal" mind are hopelessly lame. The Lembke "research" is hokum; Lembke was motivated by the fact pro-military types (Nixon, Reagan and worse LBJ) used the spitting to kick around the anti-military left. That was true, the pro-military types did use the spiiting as an effective tactic to politically beat the anti-military Left. Lembe was challenged, and a significant number of credible verterans came forward to state they were spat on and they gave time, places and crcumstances. But this was all at a time before phone cameras, flip phones and twitter, so I don't believe anyone documented the veteran statements with photos. Anyways, any thinking person has to dismiss Lembke as a man with an agenda, and conclude that while spitting occurred, it was not widespread, and righties and Lembke politicized it. Cohen buying Lembke hook, line and sinker just shows what kind of liberal fool he is.

Right,narciso.
Cohen is a bad example of why having ROTC in the Ivies might change his mind. Like Madoff he was a grad of the famed Far Rockaway High School. I forget where he went to college, but it sure was no Ivy.

Widespread or not, spitting was used by the protest crowd. Eight years before Vin Weber won his seat in the House of Representatives, he was the chairman of the University of Minnesota College Republicans, and I was on its executive board. Board members and a few general members counter-picketed the big McGovern rally/war protest on the Mall of the main campus. The "peace protestors" punched, kicked and spat upon us. Lucky me, I got all three treatments. I would be greatly surprised if returning servicemen were not spat upon.

I'm with you, lyle. We went through all of this during the 2004 election season. Nothing has changed since then to convince me that no VN vet was spit on. In the late 60s and early 70s I saw for myself organized war protestors significantly harassing uniformed members of the armed forces in a number of airports throughout the country.

Sad to think that Richard Feynmann was also a grad of Far Rockaway High School. I wonder if its a case of Cohen thinking that he is somehow brilliant simply because he attended the same High School as some genius therefore he naturally assumes that he's a genius or a really smart person as well just because some brilliant guy went to his high-school a dozen years before. Don't know exactly how that works but maybe it's some bizarre variety of mental penis envy, and it must kill him, if he is ever honest enough with himself, to look at himself in the mirror and truthfully acknowledge his limitations and lack of intelligence, honesty, and decency.

BTW, Special thanks TM, to you and bgates and everybody else for helping with the installation of The Narcisolator. I never installed it myself since long ago I decided never to read the trolls, but it is wonderful seeing how well this place flows when good hearted folks no longer waste time futilely responding intelligently, honestly and decently to pointless attention seeking jerkoffs. Many, many thanks for that.

JimR-- you've got it right. In response to the Lembke "research" large numbers of vets came forward with specific statements of when and where they were spat on. The Left's response was "show us photos"; just nonsense. For Cohen to buy into that nonsense destroys any credibility about his "larger point".

No Cohen, doesn't have a point, when he was in school, he availed himself of every exemption, which meant many were forced to go in his place, now we've had a voluntary service for many years now, yet the complain seems to be that we need a draft; however many of the same people will be opposing that.Coulter is right, when she snarks that the only war liberals are in favor of, is the one we're not actively fighting. First Afghanistan was the good war, now it's not, eventually they would find a way to support the Janjaweed if we ever went against them

His larger point is total bunk. Gary Hart wrote a book about 15 years ago talking about how we needed to integrate the military back into society with the all volunteer force. One way to do that was to put much of the support functions in the Reserves to ensure that any large mobilization would effect every town in America by calling up lots of reservists. That's exactly what the Army did. The situation was even more true as Iraq wore on and more and more National Guard combat arms units got mobilized. I see lots of vets all the time in Central Illinois.

Ironicly, even though this place is filled with Vets, the only Vet most of the grad students or faculty know at my university, is me. And I hardly count at this point since I got out over 10 years ago. The only people who don't know anyone who is a Vet are the pinheads at elite colleges and in DC.

It is too bad that Mr Cohen never had the pleasure to walk across the campus at Berkeley or CUNY or the IVY's etc in the late 60's to early 70's. I did in the late 70's at Boulder and in the early 80's in UW (Seattle), and though I didn't feel the spittle, somehow I also didn't feel the love.

Ranger-- I agree. Cohen's larger point is bunk, spawned from the mind of a DC elite who knows nothing of the modern military. Your point also touches on a larger theme I have been mulling, and is far more broad and corrosive than I ever realized-- the real "gulf" in America. The Gulf between media/Academic/Political elites and the rest of us. The "ivory tower" used to be a quaint place for moonbats-- no more. The elites are desperate to use the political power in DC to impose their will on all of us. Glenn Reynolds has been right for 10 years; time for some Jacksonian populism by the plain folk to run the elite out on a rail.

I joined the USMC in August 1970, right after I turned 17. Was stationed in San Diego from approx Jan 1971-May 1971. During that time, Marines were instantly identifiable, due to our haircuts.

1- Three of us were walking around Ocean Beach, staring at the girls, and being stared at by young "civilians". We got up the courage to approach a couple of likely looking females and began a conversation. Shortly after, a couple of long haired "males" objected to a couple of "baby killers" buzzing around "their" womenfolk, and interrupted with various epithets and spitting. Our tempers boiled rapidly, and the spitters quickly retreated, but not before one of them "fell" against the curb and apparently lost a tooth or two. We decided to call it a tactical victory, and beat a hasty retreat to the base.

2-Walking along a busy street, myself and a buddy, both in uniform this time, had a bottle thrown at us from a passing car, along with the standard shouts of "baby Killers", etc. While we weren't hurt, and it wasn't spit, the point is that service members of that time were just walking targets for that generation's 4 H-ers.

(hippies, hoboes, hopheads and hardons)

NK- yes, we all carried cameras and tape recorders with us all the time in 1971.

Ranger, you appear to be saying that Cohen's larger point is "total bunk" because...Gary Hart wrote a foolish book? And yet, in defense of Hart--whose book I somehow never got around to reading--it could be argued that the policy makers who gave us the all volunteer military never envisaged using the volunteer military (especially the reserves) in the ways that Bushie did--for essentially imperial (OK, arguably imperial, if you prefer) adventures. OK, maybe those policy makers--and they were legion--weren't being totally honest. Maybe they were kicking the can down the road. But when Cohen argues that for many Americans the volunteer military is "out of sight, out of mind," he may not be far off the mark. For may Americans, it's just a career choice, something other people do. Of course, all citizens should pay attention, but the reality is most people don't. The ME is far away, the value of my house keeps going up (oops!), etc. If your child volunteers, that's one thing--who do you complain to? But if they were drafted, well, that does tend to get your attention and lead you to ask, what are they using his/her life for?

LordW- your story is similar to the hundreds that were turned in to rebut Lembke's "study". Like the others you have specfic time/place details. The "urban legend/myth" of Vietnam era mistreatment of servicemen had wide currency. In fact he "myth" was so prevalent that when the Navy League/Intrepid Museum created NYC Fleet Week in 1988, the organizing committee could not convince the Navy/USMC to direct sailors and Marines to wear uniforms in public. The local public affairs office feared "incidents". In 1989, the Navy/USMC relented and the order went out that uniform of the day for shore leave was Dress Blues (Fleet Week was in April back then.) The Navy/USMC was pleasantly surprised that not only were there no reported negative incidents, but sailors and Marines couldn't buy a drink in Midtown Manhattan, and NYC girls still loved a man in uniform. Even the NYC media loved them. Spitting was no legend, but times had changed by 1989. I have an unscientific opinion of what changed from 1967-1974 to 1989.

It is too bad that Mr Cohen never had the pleasure to walk across the campus at Berkeley or CUNY or the IVY's etc in the late 60's to early 70's.

Per Wikipedia: Cohen is a graduate of Far Rockaway High School[1] and attended Hunter College, New York University, and Columbia University.

Per Cohen: The Vietnam War Army happened to have been my Army. I was on active duty as a reservist...

Per me: it would appear that Cohen has at least some idea of what he's talking about.

Note: for such a prominent journalist, it's remarkably difficult to get dates for Cohen's bio. However, it's not much of a stretch to imagine that he was in college during the Vietnam period, as well as in the reserves. How the two activities intersected, or whether they did, I can't determine.

DoT- I'd rather have one skeptical friend than a hundred that believed every word out of my (or anyone else's) mouth. As Reagan said, "trust but verify". I have read and learned from your posts for many years.

NK- Would like to hear your opinion- email it to not kill the thread, if you want.

diger at vermontel dot net

For the other side of the coin, consider this:
During the summer of 1971, the base USO bus took a load of us to Las Vegas. I forgot to bring civies, so wore standard dress greens. Did not pay for any meals, and go into all the shows, and was offered MANY drinks, but when my ID showed I was only seventeen, I was politely asked to leave.

No matter how you spin it, Cohen's "larger point" is as full of it as his no spitting assertion. He's just peeved because those who serve today are getting a great deal of support and praise from the vast majority of the country.

Cohen ignores the best argument against the draft. It produces an inferior product to that of an all volunteer armed service. During WWII and Vietnam, the Army received all draftee, and draftees constituted most Army entry personnel. I was an Army Basic Training Company commander for a time in 1966. I personally observed the enthusiasm and calibre of trainees produced by the draft. Those qualities then were mediocre at best. From all reports, those who volunteer today are several orders of magnitude more qualified than those who were drafted in times past.

I had that in mind, but also Jim Rhoads's more serious point: I'm sure Cohen would scoff at the idea that columnist draftees would do as good a job as those who enter the profession willingly, but he somehow believes that quality isn't an issue for the armed forces.

The only good thing about a draft without exemptions would be thinning the ranks of a generation of left wing, upper class, slacker snots and forcing those that survive to touch and shoot guns, eat dirt and actually meet and talk to their inferiors from the hinterlands.

LordW-- first of all this life long civilian thanks you for your Vietnam -era service.

My opinion-- why did things change? the Draft, or lack of it. More kids probably opposed Iraqi Freedom than Vietnam in 1967-70, but why no violent street protests? No Draft. As Iraqi Fredom was fought by volunteers, few Lefties had any interest in being arrested or beaten by cops in a violent street protest. to lefties, their principles are ultimatesly their own personal miserable little lives. If society doesn't bother them personally, they won't bother society. Sad.

Completely unrelated to anything here, Prof Kerr at Volokh has an interesting discussion of the outer boundaries of the federal computer intrusion statute. One of his hypos posits a commentator disregarding the express wishes of the of the blog operator. He believes that it should not be a crime, though it comes within the boundary of the statute.

He's just peeved because those who serve today are getting a great deal of support and praise from the vast majority of the country.

I dunno. One might as easily assert that he's peeved because "no great songs have come out of the war in Iraq."

Instead, he seems to be claiming that a draft would have had the effect of forcing policy makers to think a bit harder about their decisions, especially after the Vietnam experience:

Had there been a draft, the war in Iraq might never have been fought - or would have produced the civil protests of the Vietnam War era. The Iraq debacle was made possible by a professional military and by going into debt. George W. Bush didn't need your body or, in the short run, your money. Southerners would fight, and foreigners would buy the bonds.

Well, it's always been easy for Congress to go into debt and sell bonds to foreigners, but the fact that the fighting would be done by people who volunteered and by reserves and National Guard troops who probably never dreamed that they'd be doing multiple tours of duty on the other side of the globe...that probably made it easier on the decision makers.

I was anti-war in the '70's but there wasn't any part of me that condoned violence or spitting. Of course I was no where near anyone serving so why would someone safely ensconced in liberal academia even think about that.?

IIRC what turned me against the protesters was the stories of the attacks on the service people. That made me re-think my views a lot.

But what really made me repentant happened much later when I represented a VFW post in a dram shop case. These guys were old soldiers, not an elite one in the mix. I had nothing in common with them. I saved their ass and their VFW hall and they stiffed me on the final fee. But in the course of events which took about 5 years I developed this incredible respect and then love of them, and our military - and I really have no idea why.

But boy my remorse was overwhelming over what we did to the soldiers in Viet Nam. It still is.

Even the left learned from that mistake as they desperately try and point out now they hate the war not the soldier. Yeah right.

Cohen ignores the best argument against the draft. It produces an inferior product to that of an all volunteer armed service.

That's a fine argument, but not the best. The best argument against is the immorality of involuntary servitude. It may be that it is sometimes a necessity, but that should not make it our preferred approach.

I'm sure Cohen would scoff at the idea that columnist draftees would do as good a job as those who enter the profession willingly, but he somehow believes that quality isn't an issue for the armed forces.

Cohen almost certainly believes the role of a soldier is to catch bullets, not kill the enemy. He can't comprehend the idea of soldiers as anything but cannon fodder.

CIA sure is using people it wont pay.Wiki Leaks, now DoD isn't civilian enough.DoD had to hire all the CIA to keep them open after 9/11 coughed up Plame.The civilian DoD emps now complain about the jobs and want going to war to be an option voted on by emps who are so important to our foreign relations.Garbage since 9/11.

Today's "freak out" by the Left ... The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Constitution does grant “equal protection” to women and gays, but not based on whether they are a woman or gay.
In the eyes of the 14th amendment (or any part of the Constitution), gender and sexual orientation are "non sequiturs."

The ugliness shown to our military during the Vietnam War years is what made me engage in politics. Living in the DC area...I saw all those ANSWER marches ramping up about Iraq, so I went to a Support the Troops rally.
The internet was great to find out about the organizations behind all the anti-war propaganda.
It is sad to see young kids participate in anti-war marches when they know nothing about the organizations that sponsor them.

When there is a draft, people like Cohen complain that men are being forced to fight and die. When there isn't a draft, people like Cohen complain that the public doesn't have enough skin in the game with an all-volunteer army.

So which is it?

Let's face it, people like Cohen just don't want us going to war, anytime, anyhow, and will use the wellbeing of the troops to make any available argument to this end, except an honest one.

The notion that you should have an inferior armed forces for the purpose of fomenting anti-war protests seems bogus on its face to me.

Cohen also ignores the fact that the Iraq was approved by Congress with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Is he seriously arguing that we should have a draftee Army to undermine Congressional support of defending against perceived threats to national security? If so, he is a fool.

After a lead-in suggesting the college-educated among us would never think of serving, he mentions Servicemen are more likely to be white, Southern, and rural ("codewords" for bigoted dumb hicks, right?). Then he lays this egg:

This is a military conscripted by culture and class - induced, not coerced, indoctrinated in all the proper cliches about serving one's country, honored and romanticized by those of us who would not, for a moment, think of doing the same.

But that's hardly the emphasis of the Heritage Foundation study he cites, which had four main points:

U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officers who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods.

American soldiers are more educated than their peers.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service.

His takeaway is apparently that our political and talking head classes are too cool for service, and somehow that's the Services' fault (and it makes things harder for the poor anti-war activists). Brilliant (er, not).

cecil, I don't think Columbia Journalism School teaches columnists to be the importance of facts. So boring, really. Half of being a genius like Cohen is that you know what's real without having to bother with plebian fact checks.

As a Vietnam Vet, I was astonished back in 1991 and 1992 at the support our military received in Desert Storm (the first Iraq War). It certainly took me by surprise as I was in DC at the time with certain travel to San Francisco (of all places). In DC there was a current of strong support both politically and socially for our Armed Forces, the POTUS, the whole policy of "this will not stand" and the building of a coalition. There was no trouble to speak of (compared to the late 60's and 70's) on the various campuses - Georgetown, GWU, AU, U of MD, etc.

But in San Francisco it was another story. The day and night of our first bombing campaign of Iraq in advance of the Kuwait invasion, all hell broke lose downtown and most office buildings caught the wrath of your average Left Coast Anarchist and spoiled brats from Danville, Concord and San Mateo.

But Cohen is full of s**t regarding the attitudes of people not just the anti-war crowd during Vietnam and somewhat after that. I saw with my own eyes numerous slanders, invectives, slurs and uses of their IQ digit.

4807. The Governor must, at the beginning of every session, communicate to the Legislature in addition to each case of reprieve, or pardon, as provided in Article V, Section 8, of the Constitution of California, each commutation, stating the name of the person convicted, the crime of which he was convicted, the sentence and its date, the date of the commutation and the reason for granting the same.

SEC. 3. (a) The Legislature shall convene in regular session at noon on the first Monday in December of each even-numbered year and each house shall immediately organize.Each session of the Legislature shall adjourn sine die by operation of the Constitution at midnight on November 30 of the following even-numbered year.

(b) On extraordinary occasions the Governor by proclamation may cause the Legislature to assemble in special session. When so assembled it has power to legislate only on subjects specified in the proclamation but may provide for expenses and other matters incidental to the session.

If the commutation was done on Sunday, it was not done at the beginning of session. It should be a violation of penal code 4807.

When there is a draft, people like Cohen complain that men are being forced to fight and die. When there isn't a draft, people like Cohen complain that the public doesn't have enough skin in the game with an all-volunteer army.

I'll skip over some of his comments that left me somewhat bemused. He states that he was in the National Guard at the time, " attending public college at night and working for an insurance company during the day." His unit was never sent to Vietnam, concerning which circumstance he states:

I am not ashamed that I did not fight. I am not ashamed, either, that I did not want to fight. Neither do I denigrate those who did. I admire their bravery. I am humbled by their courage. I am mourning their deaths -- and I will never stop asking: Why?

He then poses what seems to me to be an essentially libertarian question, but one that any conservative should be asking:

What d[[o] we owe the government? What d[oes] the government owe us?

These are always relevant questions, perennial questions even. I'm sure he has in mind (among other things) the factual basis for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, as well as the justification for the invasion of Iraq. I've said repeatedly that I saw the invasion as motivated primarily by geopolitical strategy. In a democracy, does the government owe it to the people to be upfront about such essentially imperial considerations? I don't say those considerations are illegitimate, but I do think that the failure to be forthcoming about the role that such considerations play undermines the legitimacy of government generally (there are plenty of domestic examples of this, as well).

4.Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service.

This was true 10 years ago... but not anymore. The continuous deployment, and the fact that anyone who enlists knows they will be deployed during their tour of duty, has dramaticly cut down on people joining the service to get job training and money for college.

The military of today is removed from society in general. It is a majority white and, according to a Heritage Foundation study, disproportionately Southern. New England is underrepresented, and so are big cities, but the poor are no longer cannon fodder - if they ever were - and neither are blacks. We all fight and die just about in proportion to our numbers in the population

His references to "New England" and "big cities" suggest that he may have read the HF study more closely than his seemingly loose wording might lead some to think. I suspect that those factors are what led him to speak of "culture and class," and those factors also have led others to speak of a "Red State Army," based on their study of the same HF report.

BTW, Cecil gets the hearty handshake and the pat on the back for raising the demographic issue. I went through that stuff some time back, but decided to wait and see who would pick up on it. There are other sites that deal with the issue. Googling "demographics all volunteer military" will work wonders.

Exactly, Ranger, and that's what it was more or less billed as. Now I'm waiting for someone to say that those getting "continuous deployment" are only getting what they signed up for and therefore deserve. And Bushie will visit them in hospital and will pray for them.

The cheering you heard was me, when TM who must have the patience of Job, finally told Android to piss off! I thought I would bust a lung laughing and trying to find oxygen to cheer at the same time. Go TM you rock.

If Cohen really wanted to know the defining characteristic of servicemembers, he might've tried reading Starship Troopers, where Heinlein has some fun with the concept of "moral philosophy":

Suddenly he pointed his stump at me. "You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?"
"The difference," I answered carefully, " lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."

In my experience, most veterans will provide something similar, and note the main moral act as volunteering for service. Cohen doesn't get it, and never will.

This was true 10 years ago... but not anymore.

Their data is from 2006-2007, and it's fairly compelling. (Highest recruit/population figure is African Americans at 1.08 . . . essentially the demographics match the general population.)

FWIW, I think you gave enough information to make your point. Where you go wrong is that the statute you cite merely requires the Gov. to publically report all commutations, pardons, etc rather than restrict all commutations, pardons, etc. to a single date every two years.

Completely OT-- the Drudge photo of BHO in hawaii. The man looks like an emaciated crackhead. I know most Americans need to lose some lbs, but the POTUS is one missed meal from looking like a street beggar.

That's exactly what Cohen says: "We all fight and die just about in proportion to our numbers in the population."

I take that to mean in a racial sense. But he's claiming there are culture and class disparities. Someone should email him and ask him to be more precise. (My last assignment I worked with three military guys. Two were from NE, but I would say they would have typified the class/culture divide.)

Ranger: ...people joining the service to get job training and money for college.

Me: Exactly, Ranger, and that's what it was more or less billed as.

Ranger: Hasn't been billed as that since 9/11. ... If they are still in today, it is because they re-enlisted.

I agree to an extent. I couldn't quickly find a study on why people enlist, but the steady pay check and benefits are still there--it's just that the risks are more front and center than previously.

As casualties in Iraq mounted, the Army began luring new soldiers by increasing signing bonuses for recruits and accepting a greater number of people who had medical and criminal histories, who scored low on entrance exams and who failed to graduate from high school.

The recession has provided a jolt for the Army, which hopes to decrease its roster of less qualified applicants in the coming year.

A vulture tagged by scientists at Tel Aviv University has strayed into Saudi Arabian territory, where it was promptly arrested on suspicion of being a Mossad spy, Israeli and Saudi media reported Tuesday.

I guess it's not just me about the POTUS's situation. C-Cal's right, if BHO is fighting Michelle for food, he's losing-- BADLY. Dave's right too, while BHO has become a Coulter-like social X-Ray, the ears make him much wider than Coulter. Seriously, what is up with this?

Judging from his Wikipedia page, Richard Cohen doesn't appear to be a uniformly sympathetic human being. OTOH, he did serve in the National Guard and appears to have been an exemplary student. It's interesting to contrast his record--at least in that regard--to that of Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney:

...when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

FACTBOX-U.S. Treasury's tools to stave off debt limit breach
Published: Tuesday, 4 Jan 2011 | 3:33 PM ET Text Size
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
Jan 4 (Reuters) - The Obama administration and Republicans in Congress look set for a brawl this year over raising the U.S. government's $14.294 trillion borrowing limit. The Treasury Department has said the statutory debt ceiling would be breached sometime in the first half of 2011. Several Republicans are opposed to any increase and have pledged a showdown over the issue to demand spending cuts. As of Dec. 31, the total public U.S. debt stood at $13.973 trillion, and the Treasury has forecast it will issue $431 billion in net marketable debt in the January-March period. However, that was before December's passage of a tax cut extension bill, estimated by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $374.1 billion in fiscal 2011 alone. Austan Goolsbee, a top economic aide to President Barack Obama, recently warned of "catastrophic consequences" of a breach in the debt limit, which he said would be "essentially defaulting on our obligations." But the U.S. Treasury has several tools at its disposal to delay hitting the debt ceiling. Following is a rundown of these measures and other factors affecting the debt limit. SHRINK FED'S SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCING PROGRAM The Treasury currently maintains about $200 billion on deposit with the Federal Reserve to fund emergency lending facilities that were created during the financial crisis. It could draw down this amount by not issuing new cash management bills to replace the program's maturing debt, freeing up borrowing capacity for other uses. This would likely be one of the first steps taken by the Treasury, and the SFP was last drawn down in the fall of 2009, ahead of the last debt limit increase. It quickly restored the SFP balance after the ceiling was raised. ISSUE MORE CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS The Treasury could cut issuance of longer-term government debt and rely more heavily on short-term cash management bills to gain more day-to-day control over debt outstanding. Cash management bills are typically issued for days instead of normal Treasury bill maturities of four weeks to one year. However, officials are likely to be wary of making major shifts in the Treasury's debt issuance calendar, which could upset markets. SUSPEND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES The Treasury could suspend sales of State and Local Government Series securities, known as "slugs," which are special low interest-bearing Treasury securities offered to local governments and other tax-exempt entities for the investment of municipal bond-issue proceeds. Slugs, which count against the debt limit, were last halted in September 2007 to avoid hitting the ceiling then.

During the first three months of fiscal 2011, which began Oct. 1, the Treasury had sold $29.9 billion in slugs to muni bond issuers. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND As it has in the past, the Treasury could suspend payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, a government employee pension fund. The government has recently been contributing an average of $5.9 billion to this fund per month. It would be required to replace any missed contributions and lost earnings. EXCHANGE STABILIZATION FUND The Treasury could dip into this seldom-used $50 billion fund earmarked to stabilize currency rates. Created during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the fund was last used as a backstop to guarantee money market mutual funds during the worst part of the financial crisis from September 2008 to September 2009. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES INVESTMENT FUND To free up cash, the Treasury can halt reinvestments of another federal employee pension fund known as the G-Fund, which had net assets of $118 billion at the end of 2009 invested in special short term Treasury securities with maturities of one to four days. Normally, maturing assets in the G-Fund are reinvested daily. But the Treasury has statutory authority to retain a portion of the fund, as long as it provides proper notification and reimbursement for any lost earnings from the move. ACCELERATE SALES OF TARP INVESTMENTS The Treasury is planning to begin selling shares in bailed out insurance giant American International Group Inc by around March, after a stock conversion deal is completed. Taxpayers will own about 1.66 billion AIG common shares, valued at around $93.8 billion at current market prices; the stock was trading at $56.33 on January 4. The Treasury also will own shares in AIG's AIA and other foreign assets that could be sold off, as well as shares in MetLife Inc . The Treasury also anticipates IPOs this year in lender Ally Financial and automaker Chrysler Holdings. It can resume selling General Motors shares after a lock-up agreement expires in May. It also holds warrants in Citigroup Inc and other large banks that have paid back bailout money, which could potentially bring in billions of dollars.

An improved economy could prompt banks to repay more of the $34.4 billion in government capital that remains outstanding. SELL FANNIE/FREDDIE MBS The Treasury could sell down its holdings of mortgage-backed securities bought from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the financial crisis. It held $161.54 billion of these at the end of November. On the other hand, the Treasury is still on the hook for losses that Fannie and Freddie suffer. Further declines in home prices could increase their capital draw on Treasury resources. CROSS FINGERS, HOPE FOR HIGHER TAX RECEIPTS The Treasury also could stave off its debt limit reckoning if tax receipts come in higher than expected due to stronger economic growth. Receipts in the first two months of fiscal 2011 were up 9.7 percent -- a $26.1 billion increase -- compared to the same year-earlier period. That compares to an anemic 2.7 percent gain in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30. Stronger economic growth, increased employment and a rising stock market would produce more income, reducing the need to fund government operations with debt. (Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Neil Stempleman) Keywords: USA DEBT/LIMIT (david.lawder@thomsonreuters.com; +1 202 898 8395; Reuters Messaging: david.lawder.reuters.com@reuters.net) COPYRIGHT Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. All rights reserved.

The copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters News Content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters.

And then there are government service shutdowns as well. The bond market has no fear of US default and Goolsbee know's better.

It imposes a time requirement on the time of the reporting, not the pardoning. Again, the pardoning power is Constitutional in nature. I do like some of the surrounding statutes quite a bit: They require the governor to report anything of value he receives for a pardon and every application for pardon to state all compensation connected with its preparation and submission.